This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
As the title says.
Lets say you took 1000 young, averagely fit men and told them to dedicate themselves to sport climbing, and a similar group to running, which group would get to 8a/3hr marathon first?
Lets say you took 1000 young, averagely fit men and told them to dedicate themselves to sport climbing, and a similar group to running, which group would get to 8a/3hr marathon first?
In reply to dudders:
8a almost certainly.
> As the title says.
> Lets say you took 1000 young, averagely fit men and told them to dedicate themselves to sport climbing, and a similar group to running, which group would get to 8a/3hr marathon first?
8a almost certainly.
In reply to 1poundSOCKS:
Only if you can use aid on the 8a.
> Are you allowed to plan your own marathon course?
Only if you can use aid on the 8a.
In reply to dudders:
8a redpoint is way harder than 3 hrs which is no more than a respectable club time. I'd put 3hrs about HVS to be honest, maybe E1
8a redpoint is way harder than 3 hrs which is no more than a respectable club time. I'd put 3hrs about HVS to be honest, maybe E1
Post edited at 11:44
In reply to dudders:
Assuming we're talking about a redpoint, I would say 3hr marathon is harder. I've climbed 8a (but no harder) and think that if I had the time to train and climb the same amount as I did before I could comfortably climb at that level consistently, whilst continuing to do other things. I have run sub 90 for a half (86) and know that there is no way I could run a sub 3 hour marathon without devoting the entirety of my leisure time to training.
Basically, both are entirely within the capabilities of most fit young people, but a 3 hour marathon would take more dedication. I am sure plenty will completely disagree with this analysis.
Assuming we're talking about a redpoint, I would say 3hr marathon is harder. I've climbed 8a (but no harder) and think that if I had the time to train and climb the same amount as I did before I could comfortably climb at that level consistently, whilst continuing to do other things. I have run sub 90 for a half (86) and know that there is no way I could run a sub 3 hour marathon without devoting the entirety of my leisure time to training.
Basically, both are entirely within the capabilities of most fit young people, but a 3 hour marathon would take more dedication. I am sure plenty will completely disagree with this analysis.
In reply to gazhbo:
Just my twopeneth, I found a sub 3 hour marathon easy, after running for only two years starting in my 30's. I've been climbing most of my life and have never led harder than french 7a (but I never redpointed), it's obviously horses for courses.
Just my twopeneth, I found a sub 3 hour marathon easy, after running for only two years starting in my 30's. I've been climbing most of my life and have never led harder than french 7a (but I never redpointed), it's obviously horses for courses.
In reply to dudders:
Funny you should mention those exact numbers, because in an interview with DAV Panorama a little while back Üli Steck said both of them are basic fitness criteria for a top end alpinist.
Funny you should mention those exact numbers, because in an interview with DAV Panorama a little while back Üli Steck said both of them are basic fitness criteria for a top end alpinist.
In reply to dudders:
Well, having cruised a sub 3hr marathon on the Tissington trail course but never led anything harder than 6b sport or E1 trad, there's no contest for me.
Well, having cruised a sub 3hr marathon on the Tissington trail course but never led anything harder than 6b sport or E1 trad, there's no contest for me.
In reply to dudders:
A similar question pops up about once a week on the forums. Based on those previous threads, here's my prediction for the replies to your question:
Most people who have never tried redpointing think that 8a is the moon.
Most people who have never tried running think that a 3hr marathon is the moon.
Most people replying to this thread will fit into one of the two categories above, and their reply will be as you might expect.
The only people truly qualified to answer your question are the very few people who are capable of both redpointing 8a AND running a 3hr marathon, and they are probably too busy training to post on an internet forum!
> Lets say you took 1000 young, averagely fit men and told them to dedicate themselves to sport climbing, and a similar group to running, which group would get to 8a/3hr marathon first?
A similar question pops up about once a week on the forums. Based on those previous threads, here's my prediction for the replies to your question:
Most people who have never tried redpointing think that 8a is the moon.
Most people who have never tried running think that a 3hr marathon is the moon.
Most people replying to this thread will fit into one of the two categories above, and their reply will be as you might expect.
The only people truly qualified to answer your question are the very few people who are capable of both redpointing 8a AND running a 3hr marathon, and they are probably too busy training to post on an internet forum!
In reply to Rog Wilko:
I've run that marathon twice, good innit?
> Well, having cruised a sub 3hr marathon on the Tissington trail course but never led anything harder than 6b sport or E1 trad, there's no contest for me.
I've run that marathon twice, good innit?
In reply to dudders:
IMO there's more reason NOT to succeed climbing 8a that a sub 3hr marathon.
First off is fear factor, some of your climbing sample will drop out cos they don't like heights or can't deal with falling.
Injuries...a load from both would drop out with knackered knees/fingers etc.
Technique...some of the climbing sample would never develop the motor coordination to climb 8a. Some runners will have poor style probably leading to injuries but climbing is more complex so more dropouts here.
Weather....you can run in almost any weather so this doesn'affect your training.
Partners....affects climbing but not running
I'm sure there's more but you get the idea
IMO there's more reason NOT to succeed climbing 8a that a sub 3hr marathon.
First off is fear factor, some of your climbing sample will drop out cos they don't like heights or can't deal with falling.
Injuries...a load from both would drop out with knackered knees/fingers etc.
Technique...some of the climbing sample would never develop the motor coordination to climb 8a. Some runners will have poor style probably leading to injuries but climbing is more complex so more dropouts here.
Weather....you can run in almost any weather so this doesn'affect your training.
Partners....affects climbing but not running
I'm sure there's more but you get the idea
In reply to Al Evans:
Hi Al
Ran it just the once, myself. It was the inaugural event in 1977. There were all of 20 runners!
Being a borderline obsessive orienteer at the time, I always baulked at the idea of running a marathon on tarmac - my legs and knees weren't used to that. As you'll know, there's a lot up uphill (and rather less downhill, which is more painful) so I guess fast times aren't to be expected.
Hi Al
Ran it just the once, myself. It was the inaugural event in 1977. There were all of 20 runners!
Being a borderline obsessive orienteer at the time, I always baulked at the idea of running a marathon on tarmac - my legs and knees weren't used to that. As you'll know, there's a lot up uphill (and rather less downhill, which is more painful) so I guess fast times aren't to be expected.
In reply to dudders: That's poor question, even more poorly worded. The contest would be over in 3hours!
Out of a thousand average young men a good handful (if not more) would be able to run a 3hr marathon straight of the bat. It's not a high standard in the grand scheme of things.
At Uni I was a keen climber but an occasional runner/orienteer. I took up both at a similar time. I just about made the 3rd team for cross-country (2nd team for orienteering), didn't train seriously and my marathon pace would have been around 3hrs 5min to 3hrs 10min. Conversely, I was obsessive about climbing and got to the dizzy heights of working routes around f6c.
Out of a thousand average young men a good handful (if not more) would be able to run a 3hr marathon straight of the bat. It's not a high standard in the grand scheme of things.
At Uni I was a keen climber but an occasional runner/orienteer. I took up both at a similar time. I just about made the 3rd team for cross-country (2nd team for orienteering), didn't train seriously and my marathon pace would have been around 3hrs 5min to 3hrs 10min. Conversely, I was obsessive about climbing and got to the dizzy heights of working routes around f6c.
In reply to The Ex-Engineer:
Unless by average young man, you mean average young man who does a bit of running, and then actually trains for a marathon, I'm going to say NFW.
Yes, sub-3 isn't a high standard at 50% off world record pace, but that doesn't make it easy, or something most people could do 'just like that'.
I've done sub-3, I certainly haven't done 8a, though I do live in Cambridge which is more suited to one than the other...
> That's poor question, even more poorly worded. The contest would be over in 3hours!
> Out of a thousand average young men a good handful (if not more) would be able to run a 3hr marathon straight of the bat. It's not a high standard in the grand scheme of things.
Unless by average young man, you mean average young man who does a bit of running, and then actually trains for a marathon, I'm going to say NFW.
Yes, sub-3 isn't a high standard at 50% off world record pace, but that doesn't make it easy, or something most people could do 'just like that'.
I've done sub-3, I certainly haven't done 8a, though I do live in Cambridge which is more suited to one than the other...
> At Uni I was a keen climber but an occasional runner/orienteer. I took up both at a similar time. I just about made the 3rd team for cross-country (2nd team for orienteering), didn't train seriously and my marathon pace would have been around 3hrs 5min to 3hrs 10min.
Did you do one?In reply to The Ex-Engineer:
Your reply was just like Alun predicted. For you running is quite easy but climbing is quite difficult. Keenness has nothing to do with talent - lots of people enjoy doing things they aren't super talented at but don't do the things they are good at (IMO).
I would genuinely be interested in the hypothetical sample of 1,000 20 year olds and whether 8a or 3hrs was easiest (I wouldn't limit the sample to fit and healthy but might only put the fit and healthy on the programme - this is more scientific).
Trouble is it would doubtless be quite an expensive experiment with little or no financial, medical or artistic value so securing funding might be tricky.
Your reply was just like Alun predicted. For you running is quite easy but climbing is quite difficult. Keenness has nothing to do with talent - lots of people enjoy doing things they aren't super talented at but don't do the things they are good at (IMO).
I would genuinely be interested in the hypothetical sample of 1,000 20 year olds and whether 8a or 3hrs was easiest (I wouldn't limit the sample to fit and healthy but might only put the fit and healthy on the programme - this is more scientific).
Trouble is it would doubtless be quite an expensive experiment with little or no financial, medical or artistic value so securing funding might be tricky.
In reply to Alun:
Is this true?
I don't agree with this at all. That would only tell us for people who can do both things which one thing is harder. That doesn't mean that the thing itself is actually harder objectively for the hypothetical person who can't do either yet. If they were really different things then this would be more obvious...think 3hr marathon and also being able to bench press 150kgs. Most runners would vote the 150 but most iron heads would obv find the running more difficult.
There's a point in here somewhere.
> A similar question pops up about once a week on the forums. Based on those previous threads,
Is this true?
> The only people truly qualified to answer your question are the very few people who are capable of both redpointing 8a AND running a 3hr marathon, and they are probably too busy training to post on an internet forum!
I don't agree with this at all. That would only tell us for people who can do both things which one thing is harder. That doesn't mean that the thing itself is actually harder objectively for the hypothetical person who can't do either yet. If they were really different things then this would be more obvious...think 3hr marathon and also being able to bench press 150kgs. Most runners would vote the 150 but most iron heads would obv find the running more difficult.
There's a point in here somewhere.
In reply to Mutl3y:
The marathon would be easier, simply because it's much less complicated to train for.
IMO
The marathon would be easier, simply because it's much less complicated to train for.
IMO
Post edited at 05:56
In reply to Alun:
The only people truly qualified to answer your question are the very few people who are capable of both redpointing 8a AND running a 3hr marathon, and they are probably too busy training to post on an internet forum!
Rich Simpson perhaps?
The only people truly qualified to answer your question are the very few people who are capable of both redpointing 8a AND running a 3hr marathon, and they are probably too busy training to post on an internet forum!
Rich Simpson perhaps?
In reply to dudders:
There's no technical element in a marathon. It's purely physical whereas 8a is both technical and physical therefore 8a is harder.
There's no technical element in a marathon. It's purely physical whereas 8a is both technical and physical therefore 8a is harder.
In reply to Mutl3y:
Okay okay. Once a fortnight then. And by 'similar' I mean "what percentage of people can climb grade X". Or "Grade X vs 4-minute-mile/marathon/ironman".
They are fun fodder topics for internet debate but, honestly (and accepting your point about it being difficult to find out which was genuinely harder) the replies mostly fit the format I described.
FWIW I reckon most fit young men could both run a 3hr marathon AND climb 8a if they dedicated themselves to it.
If I was really pressed I would guess that a greater percentage would do the marathon because it is more convenient to train for and, as somebody else said above, doesn't require so much technique. But as to whether which is *harder*, I really don't have the foggiest.
> > A similar question pops up about once a week on the forums. Based on those previous threads,
> Is this true?
Okay okay. Once a fortnight then. And by 'similar' I mean "what percentage of people can climb grade X". Or "Grade X vs 4-minute-mile/marathon/ironman".
They are fun fodder topics for internet debate but, honestly (and accepting your point about it being difficult to find out which was genuinely harder) the replies mostly fit the format I described.
FWIW I reckon most fit young men could both run a 3hr marathon AND climb 8a if they dedicated themselves to it.
If I was really pressed I would guess that a greater percentage would do the marathon because it is more convenient to train for and, as somebody else said above, doesn't require so much technique. But as to whether which is *harder*, I really don't have the foggiest.
In reply to Nutkey:
I didn't say 'most people' could do it, I stated that perhaps 0.5% of a representative sample population could. The issue here is the phrasing of the OP's question which relates to the best performance within a 1000 strong cohort, not that relating to 'most people'.
> Yes, sub-3 isn't a high standard at 50% off world record pace, but that doesn't make it easy, or something most people could do 'just like that'.
I didn't say 'most people' could do it, I stated that perhaps 0.5% of a representative sample population could. The issue here is the phrasing of the OP's question which relates to the best performance within a 1000 strong cohort, not that relating to 'most people'.
> Did you do one?
No, I failed to get into the draw for London the year when I was relatively keen. I ran 88min for a half marathon distance and sub-2hours for 17miles.In reply to Mutl3y:
Absolutely not. I never found climbing hard and have always performed consistently well at it. The whole point is that by any objective standard I was (and am) a good or very good climber but I was never more than a very average runner.
The issue here is that the marathon standard is just a lower bar - especially in the very strange context of how the OP phrased the question.
With than large a sample you are pretty much guaranteed to find at least one (or far more) naturally talented marathon runners. So - 3hrs, by far.
However, if you want look at median performance or phrase the question in another manner (e.g. with X years training), you might find a different answer.
> For you running is quite easy but climbing is quite difficult.
Absolutely not. I never found climbing hard and have always performed consistently well at it. The whole point is that by any objective standard I was (and am) a good or very good climber but I was never more than a very average runner.
The issue here is that the marathon standard is just a lower bar - especially in the very strange context of how the OP phrased the question.
> I would genuinely be interested in the hypothetical sample of 1,000 20 year olds and whether 8a or 3hrs was easiest
With than large a sample you are pretty much guaranteed to find at least one (or far more) naturally talented marathon runners. So - 3hrs, by far.
However, if you want look at median performance or phrase the question in another manner (e.g. with X years training), you might find a different answer.
In reply to The Ex-Engineer:
"The issue here is that the marathon standard is just a lower bar"
Low, but not that low. You'd have got somewhere around Top 1400 from 36000 at London. None of those people just rocked up and had a go. Some top, top level athletes from other sports, people with superb aerobic engines span that sort of time (Boardman 3h19, Cracknell 2h59, Jalabert, 2h46). 90mins for a half is way more doable than 3h for a marathon. 8a is quite hard too of course, I'm staring at it from the wrong end of a telescope
"The issue here is that the marathon standard is just a lower bar"
Low, but not that low. You'd have got somewhere around Top 1400 from 36000 at London. None of those people just rocked up and had a go. Some top, top level athletes from other sports, people with superb aerobic engines span that sort of time (Boardman 3h19, Cracknell 2h59, Jalabert, 2h46). 90mins for a half is way more doable than 3h for a marathon. 8a is quite hard too of course, I'm staring at it from the wrong end of a telescope
In reply to The Ex-Engineer:
So you haven't run a 3 hour marathon then. You've run a sub 1:30 half, and not even by that much. I've run an 85 minute half (much better than yours) but as yet have failed to get anywhere near 3 hours for a marathon.
You can't say you would have done it when you clearly didn't. 17 miles is way off a marathon and a long way before it starts to get hard.
As for the original question. Don't know, I've done neither, although I am a lot closer to the marathon than the climbing. I think I onsighted a 5a once.
So you haven't run a 3 hour marathon then. You've run a sub 1:30 half, and not even by that much. I've run an 85 minute half (much better than yours) but as yet have failed to get anywhere near 3 hours for a marathon.
You can't say you would have done it when you clearly didn't. 17 miles is way off a marathon and a long way before it starts to get hard.
As for the original question. Don't know, I've done neither, although I am a lot closer to the marathon than the climbing. I think I onsighted a 5a once.
In reply to XXXX:
as yet have failed to get anywhere near 3 hours for a marathon.
Took the words out of my mouth. But you have to remember that the Ex-engineer is usually proved right in the end (according to his modest profile). )
as yet have failed to get anywhere near 3 hours for a marathon.
> 17 miles is way off a marathon and a long way before it starts to get hard.
Took the words out of my mouth. But you have to remember that the Ex-engineer is usually proved right in the end (according to his modest profile). )
In reply to dudders:
You asked which group would get to its goal first, which is not - perhaps not at all - the same question as which group would show a higher percentage of successes.
It would be an interesting experiment, certainly. It seems to me that it would perhaps depend on the exact parameters.
If, for the sake of argument, we say that the contestants are given five years, told that those who fail will be executed, and given all possible coaching and other facilities, I’d expect an almost 100% success rate at both tasks, with the main limiting factor being injury, which I’d expect to strike down more of the climbing group.
But as many have said, none of us really has any idea.
As to which would get there first, what does that mean? Which would be the first task achieved by one person? By 25%? 50%?
jcm
You asked which group would get to its goal first, which is not - perhaps not at all - the same question as which group would show a higher percentage of successes.
It would be an interesting experiment, certainly. It seems to me that it would perhaps depend on the exact parameters.
If, for the sake of argument, we say that the contestants are given five years, told that those who fail will be executed, and given all possible coaching and other facilities, I’d expect an almost 100% success rate at both tasks, with the main limiting factor being injury, which I’d expect to strike down more of the climbing group.
But as many have said, none of us really has any idea.
As to which would get there first, what does that mean? Which would be the first task achieved by one person? By 25%? 50%?
jcm
In reply to Alun:
... or the people who are just below on one or the other.
My first and only marathon race ever was 3:30, without exactly zero long distance training beforehand.
Climbingwise I have never come close to 8a (a couple of routes of UIAA XIII sport at max.), despite climbing regularly for many years.
Guess it depends on your body weight, general fitness, and other specifics, but I am certain I could go below 3h if I put my time to it, but it would have to be a very specific type of 8a route for me to have even the slightest chance to redpoint it.
CB
... or the people who are just below on one or the other.
My first and only marathon race ever was 3:30, without exactly zero long distance training beforehand.
Climbingwise I have never come close to 8a (a couple of routes of UIAA XIII sport at max.), despite climbing regularly for many years.
Guess it depends on your body weight, general fitness, and other specifics, but I am certain I could go below 3h if I put my time to it, but it would have to be a very specific type of 8a route for me to have even the slightest chance to redpoint it.
CB
In reply to cb294:
Agree with this.
Most people have a much better chance of hitting the marathon target IMO.
Agree with this.
Most people have a much better chance of hitting the marathon target IMO.
In reply to dudders:
I know loads, hundreds, I guess of people who've run sub 3hrs, and a lot of them are a long way from being what I would describe as good at running and they wouldn't claim it either, and while most of them train semi seriously I know an awful lot who never run more than 15 miles and bodge round on the day (I did for my first)
Honestly I'd equate it to 7a.
I know loads, hundreds, I guess of people who've run sub 3hrs, and a lot of them are a long way from being what I would describe as good at running and they wouldn't claim it either, and while most of them train semi seriously I know an awful lot who never run more than 15 miles and bodge round on the day (I did for my first)
Honestly I'd equate it to 7a.
In reply to wbo:
Depression overcomes me. 3hrs is 6:52 pace x 26. I run 50 miles a week, most weeks and I find that pace hard for just a few miles. No, actually, just for one mile.
> I know loads, hundreds, I guess of people who've run sub 3hrs, and a lot of them are a long way from being what I would describe as good at running and they wouldn't claim it either, and while most of them train semi seriously I know an awful lot who never run more than 15 miles and bodge round on the day (I did for my first)
> Honestly I'd equate it to 7a.
Depression overcomes me. 3hrs is 6:52 pace x 26. I run 50 miles a week, most weeks and I find that pace hard for just a few miles. No, actually, just for one mile.
Post edited at 12:55
In reply to mbh:
Well, OK, and no offence, but you’re old! I’'m no runner and I could do one mile quicker than that when I was ten years old.
What proportion of, say, London marathon entrants go under 3 hours, I wonder?
jcm
Well, OK, and no offence, but you’re old! I’'m no runner and I could do one mile quicker than that when I was ten years old.
What proportion of, say, London marathon entrants go under 3 hours, I wonder?
jcm
Post edited at 12:59
In reply to dudders:
On which last theme, incidentally, I learned the other day that the world record for a marathon by a ten-year-old is 3.02.
Maybe I shouldn't be staggered, but I am.
jcm
On which last theme, incidentally, I learned the other day that the world record for a marathon by a ten-year-old is 3.02.
Maybe I shouldn't be staggered, but I am.
jcm
In reply to SteveRi:
Ah, thanks. How many in some similar competition would manage to redpoint 8a, I wonder?
It's especially difficult to compare, of course, because a marathon is a one-shot, real time event. Redpointing, you only need to get lucky once out of 100 tries, if needs be.
jcm
Ah, thanks. How many in some similar competition would manage to redpoint 8a, I wonder?
It's especially difficult to compare, of course, because a marathon is a one-shot, real time event. Redpointing, you only need to get lucky once out of 100 tries, if needs be.
jcm
Post edited at 13:09
In reply to dudders:
First off it depends how much you want to do either. Both take hard work and dedication to achieve. However, climbing is a skills based thing. You could be super strong and fit but that alone won't get you up an 8a. Not saying there isn't some skill/technique involved in running a marathon, but I don't see it as a skilled activity.
It'd be like saying what's harder, climbing an 8a or deadlifting twice your bodyweight. Just my opinion of course, what do I know...not done either!
First off it depends how much you want to do either. Both take hard work and dedication to achieve. However, climbing is a skills based thing. You could be super strong and fit but that alone won't get you up an 8a. Not saying there isn't some skill/technique involved in running a marathon, but I don't see it as a skilled activity.
It'd be like saying what's harder, climbing an 8a or deadlifting twice your bodyweight. Just my opinion of course, what do I know...not done either!
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:
Can't quite believe that you mean no offence, you being you, but 6:50 is quite a pace when you are out for a longish run of 10 miles or so. Stepping up the pace, 6:24 is 40 min for 10k, which many people struggle ever to attain. I've only ever kept up that pace for 8k.
Can't quite believe that you mean no offence, you being you, but 6:50 is quite a pace when you are out for a longish run of 10 miles or so. Stepping up the pace, 6:24 is 40 min for 10k, which many people struggle ever to attain. I've only ever kept up that pace for 8k.
In reply to dudders:
First (and only) marathon I did in 3hrs 32mins as a half arsed 41 year old male runner with bugger all training. I can't even get up 6bs constantly. I'd say marathon.
First (and only) marathon I did in 3hrs 32mins as a half arsed 41 year old male runner with bugger all training. I can't even get up 6bs constantly. I'd say marathon.
In reply to dudders:
I have just re-read my initial reply, I am not sure if it makes clear what my opinion is. I think 8a is harder than running a sub 3 hour marathon.
I don't think either is easy, but I know a lot more people who have run a sub 3 hour marathon than I do climbed 8a, furthermore I am a lot closer to the running target myself than I am the climbing one.
I have just re-read my initial reply, I am not sure if it makes clear what my opinion is. I think 8a is harder than running a sub 3 hour marathon.
I don't think either is easy, but I know a lot more people who have run a sub 3 hour marathon than I do climbed 8a, furthermore I am a lot closer to the running target myself than I am the climbing one.
In reply to The New NickB:
Yeah, agreed. I know of 3 people who have run sub-3-hour marathons, none of which were serious runners. They were fit, but nothing outrageous. However, I know only 2 people who have redpointed 8a, both of whom are very competent climbers. I also know more climbing friends than running friends! Then again, maybe it's my perception of the two events: a 3-hour marathon to me seems reasonable but 8a is just bonkers.
Yeah, agreed. I know of 3 people who have run sub-3-hour marathons, none of which were serious runners. They were fit, but nothing outrageous. However, I know only 2 people who have redpointed 8a, both of whom are very competent climbers. I also know more climbing friends than running friends! Then again, maybe it's my perception of the two events: a 3-hour marathon to me seems reasonable but 8a is just bonkers.
In reply to Mr Fuller:
I know there isn't a world record for climbing but if there were I'd imagine 8a would be much nearer to it in any sense you choose than a 3hr marathon is to the world marathon record, which if memory serves stands at about 2hr 3 min. Maybe the OP should have compared 8a to say 2hr 15min (somewhere close to women's WR)?
I know there isn't a world record for climbing but if there were I'd imagine 8a would be much nearer to it in any sense you choose than a 3hr marathon is to the world marathon record, which if memory serves stands at about 2hr 3 min. Maybe the OP should have compared 8a to say 2hr 15min (somewhere close to women's WR)?
In reply to dudders:
Don't have the figures but why not look at the numbers of people logging 8a routes and above on here as a proportion of the total number of users. Do the same on a running forum for sub 3h marathons and report your findings.
Don't have the figures but why not look at the numbers of people logging 8a routes and above on here as a proportion of the total number of users. Do the same on a running forum for sub 3h marathons and report your findings.
In reply to Rog Wilko:
>Maybe the OP should have compared 8a to say 2hr 15min (somewhere close to women's WR)?
You've noticed the way women have climbed 9a, right?
jcm
>Maybe the OP should have compared 8a to say 2hr 15min (somewhere close to women's WR)?
You've noticed the way women have climbed 9a, right?
jcm
In reply to Rog Wilko:
2:15 is much much harder than 8a. Hundreds of British climbers will climb 8a this year, thousands of British runners will run sub 3 hours, I will be amazed if more than 10 British run 2;15 or better this year.
I have just checked Power of 10, only Mo Farah and Chris Thompson have run faster than Paula's world record this year. The European Championship A standard for men is 5 seconds slower than her WR.
2:15 is much much harder than 8a. Hundreds of British climbers will climb 8a this year, thousands of British runners will run sub 3 hours, I will be amazed if more than 10 British run 2;15 or better this year.
I have just checked Power of 10, only Mo Farah and Chris Thompson have run faster than Paula's world record this year. The European Championship A standard for men is 5 seconds slower than her WR.
In reply to 999thAndy:
And when you've done that, repeat the exercise in France and Spain.
We live in an island where it rains half the time and we have a tradition of trad rather than sport climbing. That's going to skew all these 'well I know x people who've done y and only z people who've done a' tales. If we lived somewhere way too hot to run most of the time but where you can't move without running into overhanging sheets of bolted limestone, I suspect we'd have different experiences.
jcm
And when you've done that, repeat the exercise in France and Spain.
We live in an island where it rains half the time and we have a tradition of trad rather than sport climbing. That's going to skew all these 'well I know x people who've done y and only z people who've done a' tales. If we lived somewhere way too hot to run most of the time but where you can't move without running into overhanging sheets of bolted limestone, I suspect we'd have different experiences.
jcm
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:
What like Kenya or Ethiopia.
> If we lived somewhere way too hot to run most of the time
What like Kenya or Ethiopia.
In reply to The New NickB:
Yes, fair point. But equally in France they reckon 8a is what everyone does, whereas running is something only crazy people do.
jcm
Yes, fair point. But equally in France they reckon 8a is what everyone does, whereas running is something only crazy people do.
jcm
In reply to Rog Wilko
A 2:
A 2:15 marathon means a one mile pace far faster than almost anyone can manage just for one mile. It's about 5:10 pace, which would be tough even for a ten year old..
Is one 8a move beyond almost anyone?
A 2:
A 2:15 marathon means a one mile pace far faster than almost anyone can manage just for one mile. It's about 5:10 pace, which would be tough even for a ten year old..
Is one 8a move beyond almost anyone?
Post edited at 14:44
In reply to mbh:
Depends on the 8a. If it's Raindogs, no. If it's (insert boulder 8a here), there might be more of a problem.
jcm
> Is one 8a move beyond almost anyone?
Depends on the 8a. If it's Raindogs, no. If it's (insert boulder 8a here), there might be more of a problem.
jcm
Because the running forums are totally unrepresentative of the running population, and most of the club runners won't/don't/don't care to go anywhere near them.
That's re the q on looking at proportions on running forums, which are rather nasty places.
Post edited at 14:46
In reply to The Ex-Engineer:
The above all sounds like a load of arrogant BS.
Also if I remember correctly you studied at Cambridge, so regardless of how obsessive about climbing you were you wouldn't have touched rock that often. Had you lived in North Wales, Yorkshire or Sheffield you probably would have climbed (a lot) more often and consequently harder. Also you've never actually ran a marathon only a half marathon. Which in climbing terms is a bit like offering advice Lord when you've only climbed Cemetery Gates!
> Out of a thousand average young men a good handful (if not more) would be able to run a 3hr marathon straight of the bat. It's not a high standard in the grand scheme of things.
> At Uni I was a keen climber but an occasional runner/orienteer. I took up both at a similar time. I just about made the 3rd team for cross-country (2nd team for orienteering), didn't train seriously and my marathon pace would have been around 3hrs 5min to 3hrs 10min. Conversely, I was obsessive about climbing and got to the dizzy heights of working routes around f6c.
The above all sounds like a load of arrogant BS.
Also if I remember correctly you studied at Cambridge, so regardless of how obsessive about climbing you were you wouldn't have touched rock that often. Had you lived in North Wales, Yorkshire or Sheffield you probably would have climbed (a lot) more often and consequently harder. Also you've never actually ran a marathon only a half marathon. Which in climbing terms is a bit like offering advice Lord when you've only climbed Cemetery Gates!
In reply to dudders:
Another way to look at it is to note the difference between men's and women's world class performances. To get in the top few marathon times for men you need to run sub 2:04 and for women sub 2:19 - a gender difference of 15 minutes. For climbing the equivalent standards are 9b+ and 9a - a gender difference of 3 grades.
8a is then 6 grades, or 2 gender differences, from world-class women's performance, which means an equivalent standard for marathon running would be 30 minutes slower than 2:19, i.e. sub 2:49.
Probably not such a bad comparison as marathon running and climbing are both sports where top women's achievements are at elite men's standard.
Another way to look at it is to note the difference between men's and women's world class performances. To get in the top few marathon times for men you need to run sub 2:04 and for women sub 2:19 - a gender difference of 15 minutes. For climbing the equivalent standards are 9b+ and 9a - a gender difference of 3 grades.
8a is then 6 grades, or 2 gender differences, from world-class women's performance, which means an equivalent standard for marathon running would be 30 minutes slower than 2:19, i.e. sub 2:49.
Probably not such a bad comparison as marathon running and climbing are both sports where top women's achievements are at elite men's standard.
In reply to dudders:
The people training to climb would get to 8a first, and the people training to run would get to the 3 hour marathon first. Was this whole topic a quiz about reading the question?
> Lets say you took 1000 young, averagely fit men and told them to dedicate themselves to sport climbing, and a similar group to running, which group would get to 8a/3hr marathon first?
The people training to climb would get to 8a first, and the people training to run would get to the 3 hour marathon first. Was this whole topic a quiz about reading the question?
In reply to cb294:
Yes really. A 3:30 marathon is quite easy. A sub 3 is very hard. One is 8min miles and the other is 6:52 min miles. If you don't appreciate the difference go and do it. It's 17 seconds difference over just 400m. It would only take about 7 laps before the slower runner would be lapped. The slower runner would be 4 miles behind at the end.
A 3:30 marathon is run at a pace that most fit people can sustain aerobically with a good level of fitness from other sports. It's a level achievable with a strong head and a good steady pace. A 3:00 marathon requires most people to develop significant running efficiency and to shift aerobic thresholds through specific training. I don't believe there are many people who could run one straight off with no running or athletic background.
Another consideration, once you've climbed 8a, how many more could you do in a year? In a day? Then think how many sub 3s you could do in the same period
Yes really. A 3:30 marathon is quite easy. A sub 3 is very hard. One is 8min miles and the other is 6:52 min miles. If you don't appreciate the difference go and do it. It's 17 seconds difference over just 400m. It would only take about 7 laps before the slower runner would be lapped. The slower runner would be 4 miles behind at the end.
A 3:30 marathon is run at a pace that most fit people can sustain aerobically with a good level of fitness from other sports. It's a level achievable with a strong head and a good steady pace. A 3:00 marathon requires most people to develop significant running efficiency and to shift aerobic thresholds through specific training. I don't believe there are many people who could run one straight off with no running or athletic background.
Another consideration, once you've climbed 8a, how many more could you do in a year? In a day? Then think how many sub 3s you could do in the same period
In reply to john arran:
Interesting, but are climbing grades linear? It gets harder and harder to take time off a marathon time the faster you go. Is the same true of climbing or are grade boundaries fairly consistent? That's quite hard to answer I reckon as it's all a bit subjective.
Interesting, but are climbing grades linear? It gets harder and harder to take time off a marathon time the faster you go. Is the same true of climbing or are grade boundaries fairly consistent? That's quite hard to answer I reckon as it's all a bit subjective.
In reply to wbo:
Nastier than UKC? I thought we had monopolised rudeness and were close to cornering the market in mysogeny (sp?)
I suggested a running forum as an easy place to gather some data, I guess it might be better to email the runners equivalent of the BMC
Nastier than UKC? I thought we had monopolised rudeness and were close to cornering the market in mysogeny (sp?)
I suggested a running forum as an easy place to gather some data, I guess it might be better to email the runners equivalent of the BMC
In reply to XXXX:
>Is the same true of climbing
Yes, of course it is. It's true of all sports, I'd imagine.
jcm
>Is the same true of climbing
Yes, of course it is. It's true of all sports, I'd imagine.
jcm
In reply to 999thAndy:
No need, it is a much more results driven sport and everything goes online.
http://www.runbritainrankings.com/rankings/rankinglist.aspx?event=Mar&a...
> I suggested a running forum as an easy place to gather some data, I guess it might be better to email the runners equivalent of the BMC
No need, it is a much more results driven sport and everything goes online.
http://www.runbritainrankings.com/rankings/rankinglist.aspx?event=Mar&a...
In reply to JayPee630:
Ladies and gentlemen, I rest my case!
And for the marathon runner who said a sub 3hr marathon is equivalent to 7a, I rest my case even more!
> First (and only) marathon I did in 3hrs 32mins as a half arsed 41 year old male runner with bugger all training. I can't even get up 6bs constantly. I'd say marathon.
Ladies and gentlemen, I rest my case!
And for the marathon runner who said a sub 3hr marathon is equivalent to 7a, I rest my case even more!
In reply to wbo:
See my first post on this thread:
http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?t=585382&v=1#x7750539
See my first post on this thread:
http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?t=585382&v=1#x7750539
In reply to dudders:
I think the fact that out of 1000 fit young people with no training or background in ether marathon or climbing, some would be able to run a sub 3h marathon, yet none would even get close to redpointing 8a shows that 8a is way harder...
though that is a poor analogy as redpointing is training, though i guess that just proves the point even more!
I think the fact that out of 1000 fit young people with no training or background in ether marathon or climbing, some would be able to run a sub 3h marathon, yet none would even get close to redpointing 8a shows that 8a is way harder...
though that is a poor analogy as redpointing is training, though i guess that just proves the point even more!
In reply to Webster:
Did I miss the part where this was established as fact?
> I think the fact that out of 1000 fit young people...,
Did I miss the part where this was established as fact?
In reply to XXXX:
Of course a 3:00 marathon is a different beast from 3:30. However, I am sure this could at the time have been within reach with the required training (Anyway, I could have shaved another 10 or 15 mins off my time had I not slowed down for a friend and run at chatting pace for a while before he had to quit).
8a? Not really, wrong body shapea and size.... Maybe, just maybe, it might be possible with loads of training on an off vertical, slabby friction horror, but certainly not your typical, overhanging Euro limestone enduro route.
Anyway, this might be totally different for the next person, but extrapolating from my experience I would guess that overall a higher fraction of people would, with the required training, be able to achieve the 3h marathon.
CB
Of course a 3:00 marathon is a different beast from 3:30. However, I am sure this could at the time have been within reach with the required training (Anyway, I could have shaved another 10 or 15 mins off my time had I not slowed down for a friend and run at chatting pace for a while before he had to quit).
8a? Not really, wrong body shapea and size.... Maybe, just maybe, it might be possible with loads of training on an off vertical, slabby friction horror, but certainly not your typical, overhanging Euro limestone enduro route.
Anyway, this might be totally different for the next person, but extrapolating from my experience I would guess that overall a higher fraction of people would, with the required training, be able to achieve the 3h marathon.
CB
In reply to cb294:
training changes your body shape in climbing as it does in any sport
> 8a? Not really, wrong body shapea and size.... Maybe, just maybe, it might be possible with loads of training on an off vertical, slabby friction horror, but certainly not your typical, overhanging Euro limestone enduro route.
training changes your body shape in climbing as it does in any sport
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:
In that case the runners would win. I imagine thinking about your execution if you fail would rather mess up your redpoint!
>
> If, for the sake of argument, we say that the contestants are given five years, told that those who fail will be executed
>
> If, for the sake of argument, we say that the contestants are given five years, told that those who fail will be executed
>
In that case the runners would win. I imagine thinking about your execution if you fail would rather mess up your redpoint!
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...